By Kristen Koczarski
Mary Gaitskill’s first three works, two collections of short stories and one novel, are full of dark underbellies and poignant themes and Veronica is no exception. This most recent novel, published in 2005 and nominated for the National Book Award, explores sickness, death, beauty, sex, and family to name only a few.
Veronica is the story of Alison Owen, a middle-aged woman with Hepatitis C and living off disability. As the reader follows her through the course of one day, Alison reflects on the events past and everything that led up to this point. The bulk of the novel is comprised of flashbacks and memories of events as told through a now grown Alison. These jumps in time are denoted by page breaks, and you would expect these to be jarring or disjointed, but they are not. Gaitskill’s transitions are as fluid and seamless as a fever dream—where everything intermingles in a confusing and enlightening way. As the novel progresses, we learn of Alison’s all but broken family, her teenage rebellions, and her venture into the European modeling world.
After being chewed up and spit out by her modeling agency, Alison gets a temp job working along side Veronica, a dignified but quirky woman over a decade her senior. The two strike up an unlikely friendship. When Veronica is infected with AIDS by her bisexual boyfriend Duncan, most of Veronica’s friends abandon her and Alison resolves to be the “brave” friend to the sick and dying woman. Many years later after Veronica’s death, Alison now has to live as the sick woman instead.
Gaitskill’s writing is breathtaking. Veronica is lyrical and sharp enough to cut the whole way through. Her blunt and casual treatment of societally deviant, usually sexual, behaviors like hard drug use and BDSM is refreshing in its clarity and candidness. The two running motifs in the novel, communicating through popular music and a mythic tale of a beautiful spoiled girl given to us on the first page, weave in and out throughout the entire work, tying each strand to the next in such a way as to leave the reader reeling. Veronica is a gripping read that haunts long after the last page has been turned.
Veronica and Gaitskill’s other books are available in the Wadleigh Library.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Sunday, February 10, 2008
SO Good Interview: Sérah Carter, Leah Guilmette, & Jenn Monroe
After the reading given by Jenn Monroe, Sérah Carter, and Leah Guilmette, on Monday, February 4th, SO Good interviewed these three talented writers.
SO Good: How did you make your decisions about what pieces to read tonight?
Sérah Carter: It wasn't easy. I'm my own worst critic, and to tell the truth I only picked my pieces about four hours before the reading. I went with what I thought best represented my writing style, and how I wanted to be viewed- after you read, people naturally make assumptions about what you write, and I didn't want to be stuck as a 'memoirist' or a 'short fiction writer' when I do a little bit of everything.
Leah Guilmette: Oh crap. Ok. I went with my most recent work, which was memoir and a piece which wasn’t really fully ready, but I felt I really needed to close things about where I’m headed. The memoir pieces really felt the most finished. I picked the ones I liked best – I figure either they suck or they don’t, so I went with the ones that didn’t.
Jenn Monroe: I picked my favorites first, and I picked the ones that I thought were probably most appropriate for the audience; I know that seems like a pat answer, but I can get away with reading poems at CCNE that I probably couldn’t anywhere else. For instance, I have other poems that I might read in front of strangers, but not colleagues and students. For instance, the "Drishti" poem, I couldn’t read just anywhere – it was the one poem I almost didn’t read. But it’s all on how you read something, too; I would read it differently for a single person than for a group – it can be a highly erotic poem, but it depends on how much I want the people to leave wanting a cigarette. I would read different poems differently for different audiences.
SG: What is your revision process like?
Carter: Long. As in the twenty-four hour wait before D-Day long. I'll write a piece and then stuff it somewhere for about two weeks- I won't look at it or think about it. When I look at it again, I immediately fix what flaws I see and force it on a friend or fellow writer, who finds what I can't. All told, my stuff goes through several sets of hands before I finally consider it finished. I'm a bit of a perfectionist, and it's sort of my downfall.
Guilmette: I think my first step is usually to make myself a large alcoholic beverage. Then I’ll stare at the piece for, oh about ten days. Maybe twelve. Then, I like to develop a deep loathing for every single word I’ve written. I rip it apart, cut, paste, move everything around, cut, paste, move everything back. Repeat. Really, I just try to critique it the best that I can in that moment. And then go and make another drink.
Monroe: Revision is actually where I do most of my work – and I do consider it work. Occasionally torture. But it’s so necessary because almost none of my poems are gifts, maybe ever. Well of the ones that I read, one was a gift, and I’d been thinking about it for long time – Faultline basically wrote itself – it wanted to be written. I was reading a book at the time and it just wanted to be written; I was literally holding the book in one hand and writing the poem with the other. It went through very little revision – maybe some line breaks. But then The Chocolate Sampler has been revised probably 7 or 8 times, like major over-hauls. I guess in revision, the poem and I fight about when I’m actually going to let the poem say what it wants to say; how long I resist is how long the revision takes.
SG: Do you consider the pieces you read finished?
Carter: "Dear Valentine" is as finished as finished is going to be. "Bliss," my short story, is about at a middle ground—it might need some more additions before I can call it done. The Reading piece is in its infancy.
Guilmette: Most of the pieces I read were part of a memoir portfolio, and so they were labeled as finished as possible, for now [laughing]. They’re finished up until I can make myself go and revise them again.
Monroe: Yes. Yes. Those are done. I actually feel kind of bad that I didn’t have anything really new. I always like to read something that’s in progress, but because of the state of the manuscript right now, I didn’t have anything – the ones that still need to be done aren’t ready. I’ m happy with them, which is a weird thing to say.
SG: How do you determine when a piece is finished?
Carter: I call a piece finished, really, when I can look at it without cringing, or mentally making a note that that word there should be switched out.
Guilmette: I don’t think anything is ever really finished – I work in the now. A piece can be finished in the now.
Monroe: I don’t know how to say this and not make it sound corny. I guess there’s a sort of feeling of arrival, like if you’re in a car for several hours and then you stop and stand up –it’s that kind of feeling – “I’ve arrived.” It’s a much different feeling than “I need to leave this poem alone for a while.” It’s just a sense of arrival. It’s something writers understand, I think. You know when a piece is happy with itself. The poems are not mine; they do whatever they want to do. I think that’s when writers start to get into trouble: when they try to get too much control, it starts to get too formulaic. If you know exactly what your work is going to do – I think that’s a red flag, right there.
SG: Where did these stories (fiction or poetry) originate for you?
Carter: Most of my stories are from things I notice and catalogue. I carry around a little black notebook (no, not that kind of book) that holds all my ideas. The most random thing—a shirt someone is wearing, the posture of a person waiting for a bus, a license plate—can spark a whole litany of stories. In the case of Bliss, the driving force behind it was simply, "What if?"
Guilmette: The fiction piece I read tonight came out of a surrealism class and a project I was working on and struggling with. I find that the ones that make you struggle the most, stick with you the most. It’s still not fully there, but I’m working on it. I had a lot of help from people, especially around here (CCNE). I just liked the idea so much that I knew there was something there I wanted to keep. In general, though, I’ve been drawn to fairy tales, which have, unfortunately become Disney-fied and ridiculous. But if you look at their origins, there’s magic. There’s a magical aspect to every part of life, a story.
Monroe: So much of this manuscript comes from years of learning to be ok with the violence of my childhood, and really taking a look at that little girl who had to survive where there was always that threat. It came from trying to capture that need to control the things around you, as a defense – to detach yourself. It’s a study of that little girl and what it was really like for her, and really seeing her not so much as me, but taking a step away from the memories as mine, and seeing them as someone else’s. It’s very difficult to do. In a sense I’m not writing about myself – I’m writing about a child. I’m not that child now. I think the hardest part was getting enough distance.
SG: Who would you say you are most influenced or inspired by, which writers are you currently reading that inspire you?
Carter: You know, they always ask this question. I can't say I have a concrete answer. The entire time I've been at school I've been exposed to so many fantastic writers and novelists that it's hard to narrow it down to anyone in particular. I enjoy the short fiction of A.M. Holmes and Octavia Butler. Roddy Doyle's a favorite, and so is James Joyce, but don't tell Chris Anderson that. Hmm…Michael Ende, Truman Capote...geeze, this list could never end.
Guilmette: It’s funny. It seems everything I read influences me a little bit. I can’t pick a single one that always inspires. There’s so much good stuff, especially distributed in class curriculums. The more I learn, the more I’m fueled by everything. Hopefully, the more I manage to amass, the higher the chances that I might do something great.
Monroe: There’s a contemporary Serbian poet, Radmila Lazić. I also love Anna Swir. I’ve just read so much in the past two years, and much of it has been quite influential. I love Louise Glück. Who else to I dig? Jane Mead – she’s amazing. She rocked my world. But I don’t get my inspiration just from who I’m reading – I get a lot of it from music. I’m listening to Andrew Bird right now, and I can work very easily to Stereolab. That new Radiohead album is going to work its way into my writing, sometime soon, I’m sure, since I can’t stop listening to that. I also really like magical realism, which is so amazing. It’s really a collage of everything around me. And my students too – their energy is inspiration; if I wasn’t teaching here I don’t know that half of those poems would have gotten written.
Sérah Carter
Leah Guilmette
Jenn Monroe
SO Good: How did you make your decisions about what pieces to read tonight?
Sérah Carter: It wasn't easy. I'm my own worst critic, and to tell the truth I only picked my pieces about four hours before the reading. I went with what I thought best represented my writing style, and how I wanted to be viewed- after you read, people naturally make assumptions about what you write, and I didn't want to be stuck as a 'memoirist' or a 'short fiction writer' when I do a little bit of everything.
Leah Guilmette: Oh crap. Ok. I went with my most recent work, which was memoir and a piece which wasn’t really fully ready, but I felt I really needed to close things about where I’m headed. The memoir pieces really felt the most finished. I picked the ones I liked best – I figure either they suck or they don’t, so I went with the ones that didn’t.
Jenn Monroe: I picked my favorites first, and I picked the ones that I thought were probably most appropriate for the audience; I know that seems like a pat answer, but I can get away with reading poems at CCNE that I probably couldn’t anywhere else. For instance, I have other poems that I might read in front of strangers, but not colleagues and students. For instance, the "Drishti" poem, I couldn’t read just anywhere – it was the one poem I almost didn’t read. But it’s all on how you read something, too; I would read it differently for a single person than for a group – it can be a highly erotic poem, but it depends on how much I want the people to leave wanting a cigarette. I would read different poems differently for different audiences.
SG: What is your revision process like?
Carter: Long. As in the twenty-four hour wait before D-Day long. I'll write a piece and then stuff it somewhere for about two weeks- I won't look at it or think about it. When I look at it again, I immediately fix what flaws I see and force it on a friend or fellow writer, who finds what I can't. All told, my stuff goes through several sets of hands before I finally consider it finished. I'm a bit of a perfectionist, and it's sort of my downfall.
Guilmette: I think my first step is usually to make myself a large alcoholic beverage. Then I’ll stare at the piece for, oh about ten days. Maybe twelve. Then, I like to develop a deep loathing for every single word I’ve written. I rip it apart, cut, paste, move everything around, cut, paste, move everything back. Repeat. Really, I just try to critique it the best that I can in that moment. And then go and make another drink.
Monroe: Revision is actually where I do most of my work – and I do consider it work. Occasionally torture. But it’s so necessary because almost none of my poems are gifts, maybe ever. Well of the ones that I read, one was a gift, and I’d been thinking about it for long time – Faultline basically wrote itself – it wanted to be written. I was reading a book at the time and it just wanted to be written; I was literally holding the book in one hand and writing the poem with the other. It went through very little revision – maybe some line breaks. But then The Chocolate Sampler has been revised probably 7 or 8 times, like major over-hauls. I guess in revision, the poem and I fight about when I’m actually going to let the poem say what it wants to say; how long I resist is how long the revision takes.
SG: Do you consider the pieces you read finished?
Carter: "Dear Valentine" is as finished as finished is going to be. "Bliss," my short story, is about at a middle ground—it might need some more additions before I can call it done. The Reading piece is in its infancy.
Guilmette: Most of the pieces I read were part of a memoir portfolio, and so they were labeled as finished as possible, for now [laughing]. They’re finished up until I can make myself go and revise them again.
Monroe: Yes. Yes. Those are done. I actually feel kind of bad that I didn’t have anything really new. I always like to read something that’s in progress, but because of the state of the manuscript right now, I didn’t have anything – the ones that still need to be done aren’t ready. I’ m happy with them, which is a weird thing to say.
SG: How do you determine when a piece is finished?
Carter: I call a piece finished, really, when I can look at it without cringing, or mentally making a note that that word there should be switched out.
Guilmette: I don’t think anything is ever really finished – I work in the now. A piece can be finished in the now.
Monroe: I don’t know how to say this and not make it sound corny. I guess there’s a sort of feeling of arrival, like if you’re in a car for several hours and then you stop and stand up –it’s that kind of feeling – “I’ve arrived.” It’s a much different feeling than “I need to leave this poem alone for a while.” It’s just a sense of arrival. It’s something writers understand, I think. You know when a piece is happy with itself. The poems are not mine; they do whatever they want to do. I think that’s when writers start to get into trouble: when they try to get too much control, it starts to get too formulaic. If you know exactly what your work is going to do – I think that’s a red flag, right there.
SG: Where did these stories (fiction or poetry) originate for you?
Carter: Most of my stories are from things I notice and catalogue. I carry around a little black notebook (no, not that kind of book) that holds all my ideas. The most random thing—a shirt someone is wearing, the posture of a person waiting for a bus, a license plate—can spark a whole litany of stories. In the case of Bliss, the driving force behind it was simply, "What if?"
Guilmette: The fiction piece I read tonight came out of a surrealism class and a project I was working on and struggling with. I find that the ones that make you struggle the most, stick with you the most. It’s still not fully there, but I’m working on it. I had a lot of help from people, especially around here (CCNE). I just liked the idea so much that I knew there was something there I wanted to keep. In general, though, I’ve been drawn to fairy tales, which have, unfortunately become Disney-fied and ridiculous. But if you look at their origins, there’s magic. There’s a magical aspect to every part of life, a story.
Monroe: So much of this manuscript comes from years of learning to be ok with the violence of my childhood, and really taking a look at that little girl who had to survive where there was always that threat. It came from trying to capture that need to control the things around you, as a defense – to detach yourself. It’s a study of that little girl and what it was really like for her, and really seeing her not so much as me, but taking a step away from the memories as mine, and seeing them as someone else’s. It’s very difficult to do. In a sense I’m not writing about myself – I’m writing about a child. I’m not that child now. I think the hardest part was getting enough distance.
SG: Who would you say you are most influenced or inspired by, which writers are you currently reading that inspire you?
Carter: You know, they always ask this question. I can't say I have a concrete answer. The entire time I've been at school I've been exposed to so many fantastic writers and novelists that it's hard to narrow it down to anyone in particular. I enjoy the short fiction of A.M. Holmes and Octavia Butler. Roddy Doyle's a favorite, and so is James Joyce, but don't tell Chris Anderson that. Hmm…Michael Ende, Truman Capote...geeze, this list could never end.
Guilmette: It’s funny. It seems everything I read influences me a little bit. I can’t pick a single one that always inspires. There’s so much good stuff, especially distributed in class curriculums. The more I learn, the more I’m fueled by everything. Hopefully, the more I manage to amass, the higher the chances that I might do something great.
Monroe: There’s a contemporary Serbian poet, Radmila Lazić. I also love Anna Swir. I’ve just read so much in the past two years, and much of it has been quite influential. I love Louise Glück. Who else to I dig? Jane Mead – she’s amazing. She rocked my world. But I don’t get my inspiration just from who I’m reading – I get a lot of it from music. I’m listening to Andrew Bird right now, and I can work very easily to Stereolab. That new Radiohead album is going to work its way into my writing, sometime soon, I’m sure, since I can’t stop listening to that. I also really like magical realism, which is so amazing. It’s really a collage of everything around me. And my students too – their energy is inspiration; if I wasn’t teaching here I don’t know that half of those poems would have gotten written.
Sérah Carter
Leah Guilmette
Jenn Monroe
Friday, February 8, 2008
SO Good Posters Cause Campus Stir
By Mistress Kris
A bit of campus controversy arose this past week over posters asking for submissions for SO Good, the Chester College Annual. The posters, designed by two female members of the SO Good staff, were distributed around the college grounds and employed a rather ironic and punny use of the word “submission.” Three pictures were featured, two small ones- one of a meek looking woman kneeling a corner and another of cows behind a fence- and one larger picture of a 50’s style pin-up girl dressed as a dominatrix wielding a riding crop. The title announced “Submission: It’s not just for livestock and women anymore,” while the bottom of the poster stated that the Chester College Annual was now accepting submissions of work of all kinds.
The two women who made the poster, and the rest of the staff, felt it was obviously meant in jest since one, it was just too absurdly objectionable to ever be taken as seriously misogynist and two, the largest picture depicted a woman in a sexually dominant and powerful role. Still, just a few days after being hung up, an anonymous counter-poster appeared. The response flyer utilized the same layout and color scheme as the SO Good poster, but its intention was quite different.
Featuring the heading “Domination: It’s not just for Fascists and CCNE [Chester College of New England] anymore,” the counter-poster also sported the Chester College logo, a clip art of an irate cartoon cow, and a large scanned photo of dictator Benito Mussolini.
The Annual staff regrets that anyone was offended by the posters.
A bit of campus controversy arose this past week over posters asking for submissions for SO Good, the Chester College Annual. The posters, designed by two female members of the SO Good staff, were distributed around the college grounds and employed a rather ironic and punny use of the word “submission.” Three pictures were featured, two small ones- one of a meek looking woman kneeling a corner and another of cows behind a fence- and one larger picture of a 50’s style pin-up girl dressed as a dominatrix wielding a riding crop. The title announced “Submission: It’s not just for livestock and women anymore,” while the bottom of the poster stated that the Chester College Annual was now accepting submissions of work of all kinds.
The two women who made the poster, and the rest of the staff, felt it was obviously meant in jest since one, it was just too absurdly objectionable to ever be taken as seriously misogynist and two, the largest picture depicted a woman in a sexually dominant and powerful role. Still, just a few days after being hung up, an anonymous counter-poster appeared. The response flyer utilized the same layout and color scheme as the SO Good poster, but its intention was quite different.
Featuring the heading “Domination: It’s not just for Fascists and CCNE [Chester College of New England] anymore,” the counter-poster also sported the Chester College logo, a clip art of an irate cartoon cow, and a large scanned photo of dictator Benito Mussolini.
The Annual staff regrets that anyone was offended by the posters.
Mary Gaitskill Set To Appear At Chester College
Fiction writer Mary Gaitskill will be visiting the Chester College campus at the end of this month. She will be leading a workshop in the Advanced Fiction class on Thursday, February 28 and will be reading from her own work on Friday, February 29 at 6 PM.
Gaitskill has released two collections of short stores, Bad Behavior and Because They Wanted To, and two novels, Two Girls, Fat and Thin and Veronica. She was awarded a Guggenheim Fellowship for fiction in 2002 and her most recent novel, Veronica, was nominated for the National Book Award in 2005. She is currently an associate professor of English at Syracuse University in New York.
COMPASS ROSE interviews Mary Gaitskill
Compass Rose:
Some specific images tend to recur in separate work, such as the ceramic poodle in "The Secretary" and "A Romantic Weekend." Are you trying to create your own modern-day iconography, and if so, how does this process work?
Mary Gaitskill:
I am not trying to create iconography.
CR:
Where do you see the line between tackling controversial issues and sensationalism? What advice would you give to someone who wants to tread that line?
Gaitskill:
I would advise that "someone" forget about "tackling controversial issues" and/or sensationalism. What is "controversial" is subjective and often fabricated. As for sensationalism, that term has always seemed crude to me in relation to art. People experience the world at least partially through their senses, and much of our intelligence is sensate; the strongest fiction is usually weighted with such puzzling, ambiguous intelligence. Critics seem to use the term "sensational" negatively for work that is blunt and very vivid, but life is often remarkably blunt and very, very vivid. I see nothing wrong with portraying it as such. However when people are going through life they rarely, if ever, think that what they are experiencing is "controversial." A real writer, in portraying a character, doesn't think that way either. Leave it to a reader to find it "controversial" or not. (more)
Compass Rose - Original Post
Gaitskill has released two collections of short stores, Bad Behavior and Because They Wanted To, and two novels, Two Girls, Fat and Thin and Veronica. She was awarded a Guggenheim Fellowship for fiction in 2002 and her most recent novel, Veronica, was nominated for the National Book Award in 2005. She is currently an associate professor of English at Syracuse University in New York.
COMPASS ROSE interviews Mary Gaitskill
Compass Rose:
Some specific images tend to recur in separate work, such as the ceramic poodle in "The Secretary" and "A Romantic Weekend." Are you trying to create your own modern-day iconography, and if so, how does this process work?
Mary Gaitskill:
I am not trying to create iconography.
CR:
Where do you see the line between tackling controversial issues and sensationalism? What advice would you give to someone who wants to tread that line?
Gaitskill:
I would advise that "someone" forget about "tackling controversial issues" and/or sensationalism. What is "controversial" is subjective and often fabricated. As for sensationalism, that term has always seemed crude to me in relation to art. People experience the world at least partially through their senses, and much of our intelligence is sensate; the strongest fiction is usually weighted with such puzzling, ambiguous intelligence. Critics seem to use the term "sensational" negatively for work that is blunt and very vivid, but life is often remarkably blunt and very, very vivid. I see nothing wrong with portraying it as such. However when people are going through life they rarely, if ever, think that what they are experiencing is "controversial." A real writer, in portraying a character, doesn't think that way either. Leave it to a reader to find it "controversial" or not. (more)
Compass Rose - Original Post
Friday, February 1, 2008
The Vagina Monologues Come To Chester College
Performance: February 15, 2008 7:00pm
Wadleigh Conference Room
Charge: $2.00 (Proceeds will go to helping women displaced by Hurricane Katrina and to the Sexual Assault Support Services for Rockingham County)
Directed by new Resident Director / Student Success Center Coordinator Jenna Gawne and co-directed by student Derek Laurendau, this spring’s production of The Vagina Monologues will be new to the Chester College of New England campus. The production, which features twenty-one monologues that all pertain in some way to the vagina, will be its first at Chester College.
“It’s a controversial play,” says Gawne. “It’s funny and it’s moving.” Despite – or perhaps aided by – its controversy, The Vagina Monologues has received an outstanding amount of support, from students, faculty, and the administration, all of whom have been attracted to the play’s purpose of raising awareness and funds for groups working to end violence against women and girls.
As of this publishing, one monologue remains uncast – the difficult “The Woman Who Loved to Make Vaginas Happy,” which reportedly deals with prostitution and involves the actress simulating orgasm onstage.
For Gawne, the most difficult part of putting the production together has been casting. Gawne describes the subject matter of the show, which stems from interviews conducted with women about their vaginas, as "touchy"; finding the right mix of understanding and comfort with the subject matter has been difficult. The Vagina Monologues, as tentatively scheduled as of this publishing, will feature the acting talents of students Amanda Adamcek, Dawn Coutu, Tiffany Etter, Krissie Gast, Vanessa Geary, Jackie Grande, Cassandra Korbey, Ashley Kreutter, Rachel Lieberman, Shannon Malloy, Linda McGriff, Maryann Stancizk, Anna Swass, faculty members Jenn Monroe, Monica O’Brien, Nannette Thrush, and staff members Jenna Gawne and Sarah Vogell.
This production of The Vagina Monologues is being run as part of the 2008 V-Day College Campaign. For more details, visit Chester’s V-Day webpage.
Wadleigh Conference Room
Charge: $2.00 (Proceeds will go to helping women displaced by Hurricane Katrina and to the Sexual Assault Support Services for Rockingham County)
Directed by new Resident Director / Student Success Center Coordinator Jenna Gawne and co-directed by student Derek Laurendau, this spring’s production of The Vagina Monologues will be new to the Chester College of New England campus. The production, which features twenty-one monologues that all pertain in some way to the vagina, will be its first at Chester College.
“It’s a controversial play,” says Gawne. “It’s funny and it’s moving.” Despite – or perhaps aided by – its controversy, The Vagina Monologues has received an outstanding amount of support, from students, faculty, and the administration, all of whom have been attracted to the play’s purpose of raising awareness and funds for groups working to end violence against women and girls.
As of this publishing, one monologue remains uncast – the difficult “The Woman Who Loved to Make Vaginas Happy,” which reportedly deals with prostitution and involves the actress simulating orgasm onstage.
For Gawne, the most difficult part of putting the production together has been casting. Gawne describes the subject matter of the show, which stems from interviews conducted with women about their vaginas, as "touchy"; finding the right mix of understanding and comfort with the subject matter has been difficult. The Vagina Monologues, as tentatively scheduled as of this publishing, will feature the acting talents of students Amanda Adamcek, Dawn Coutu, Tiffany Etter, Krissie Gast, Vanessa Geary, Jackie Grande, Cassandra Korbey, Ashley Kreutter, Rachel Lieberman, Shannon Malloy, Linda McGriff, Maryann Stancizk, Anna Swass, faculty members Jenn Monroe, Monica O’Brien, Nannette Thrush, and staff members Jenna Gawne and Sarah Vogell.
This production of The Vagina Monologues is being run as part of the 2008 V-Day College Campaign. For more details, visit Chester’s V-Day webpage.
Reading Schedule
Is the initial urge to do all your homework over yet? Great. The first and third Sunday of each month there will be a Poetry Reading in Dal: five-minute slots, featured readers, and an open invitation to speak your mind as eloquently as possible. Sign ups 6:30pm, the Reading starts at 7pm.
CCNE Student and Faculty Member Exhibit in Lowell MA
Fine Arts student, Ramon Perez, and faculty member, Megan McNaught, are exhibiting work at the Revolving Museum in Lowell, MA. The opening reception for the exhibition, "Toys and Games", is on February 14, 2008 at 6:00PM-9:00PM.
The Toys and Games Exhibition is located at the Revolving Museum in Lowell, MA.
- Taken from Chester College of New England website
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)